Talk:The Hindu

Is it really the best selling English newspaper in India?

No. But, it is a respected newspaper in India and popular in South India. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Not THE best, but number 3 in terms of circulation. Latest ABC figures do confirm this- see [1]

Any idea as to what to do about this issue of The Hindu turing a blind eye to low journalistic standards and not responding to e-mails.

No idea. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

POV

I'd like to bring to Wiki's attention the repeated attempts by some user (in China by the looks of the IP address) who is repeatedly altering this page so it reads as a personal diatribe against Ram, editor-in-chief of The Hindu. His/her last edit's details are as follows (from the 'page history' list):

15:49, 2 February 2006 59.92.196.98

While other versions of the page on Wiki seem somewhat fair and factual, even if POV is inserted marginally, this one is pure opinionating, and does not in my view belong in Wiki. Any suggestions?

I am putting in a POV tag.--Sahodaran 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahodaran and others, I agree- however as I said above- this user with IP address 59.92.196.98 keeps inserting this version of the page- with the strong anti-Ram and anti-Communist rhetoric. This has been going on for a while. I have sometimes tried to restore earlier versions, but this guy is relentless! Suggestions?

Is it not a fact that Ram is close to the CPIM, and a founding member of the SFI? Is it not a fact that he endorses the Chinese occupation of Tibet? Why is it "anti-communist" and "anti-Ram" rhetoric to state FACTS? The readers of Wikipedia's entry on The Hindu deserve to know its politics. Please look up, for example, the entry on Daily Telegraph. Readers are told of the paper's link with the Tories. The neutrality of that article is not disputed. Read up the entry on The Times. Murdoch's ownership of the paper and his links with Labour are much commented upon. Why is it "bias" only when a newspaper's pro-communist sumpathies are revealed?

A "sanitized" entry on "The Hindu" where the paper's CPIM links are pushed under the carpet no doubt pleases the pro-communist, pro-Ram segemnt of readers, but is not in the interest of truth.

Ok, whoever this anti-Communist, pro-tibet loon is, there is a difference between BALANCED commentary on political leanings and specific individuals holding editorial and other posts in the newspaper (as there are in the Wiki entries for The Times and the Daily Telegraph) and outright diatribes, based on a personal vendetta/agenda of some sort. Wiki is not the space for the latter- you should start your own blog and keep your rants there. To demonstrate, please consider the following phrases used in the Wiki entry on The Hindu by you or whoever is doing this:

The Hindu is seen as the unofficial mouthpiece of one of India's communist parties- This is POV not fact

Glorification of the Communist parties is the norm and any criticism targeted at them is virtually non-existent- POV, not fact

notably the right-of-center BJP, rountinely get unfavourable, opinionated and editorialized coverage- POV, the Sangh parivar (opposition right-wing party) has indeed been in a state of turmoil and a number of other papers have also reported this.

The Hindu has lost much of its earlier reputation of being a stickler for truth- Hardcore POV!

Ironically, though, for a newspaper committed to Marxist politics... POV for sure (is it on some record, e.g. admitted by The Hindu itself, that it is committed to Marxist politics? Are you crazy?) Wikipedia is not about bending the truth to support your viewpoint.

Title "The Hindu's Moments of Glory"- inappropriate/sarcastic- and in the latest draft has completely deleted the balanced accounts of the papers role in the Bofors scandal and the Tamil Nadu Assembly privilege case.

It's time that Wiki editors dealt with this appropriately. The very examples this partisan writer has drawn attention to, the Daily Telegraph and The Times, clearly point to what an ideal template of balanced political critique may look like.

Reply to the above:

Actually, let us see what Wikipedia's editors need to deal with.

First and foremost, they need to deal with rude people who are bringing a culure of abuse to Wiki, as in, "whoever this anti-Communist, pro-tibet loon is"

Second: "The Hindu is seen as the unofficial mouthpiece of one of India's communist parties- This is POV not fact". OF COURSE it is a point of view: it is perfectly legitimate to characterize a newspaper with a widely held point of view because no newspaper declares itself to be the mouthpiece of any political party (barring the party organs). The Guardian is widely seen as leftwing newspaper. The Independent is widely seen as a Liberal Democrat paper. The Daily Telegraph is seen as a Tory paper. The New York Times is widely seen as a Democrat paper. The Wall Street Journal is widely seen as a Republican paper. And no matter however much the afore-mentioned abuser dislikes it, the fact is that the The Hindu is seen as a pro-CPM paper. It is not a mere coincidence that the current editor of the paper, Ram, is a founding member of the CPIM's student body, is it? Why does the afore-mentioned abuser want to suppress this fact? What is his agenda in wanting to suppress a VITAL fact that throws much light on The Hindu's politics?

"Glorification of the Communist parties is the norm and any criticism targeted at them is virtually non-existent- POV, not fact". Here is the deal. Can the abuser point out to three, JUST THREE, op-ed pieces that have appeared in The Hindu in the last ten, that is TEN, years criticizing CPIM in the same no-holds barred manner that BJP or Congress is criticized?

"the Sangh parivar (opposition right-wing party) has indeed been in a state of turmoil". Excuse me? What does the "Snagh Parivar" being in a "state of turmoil" have to do with The Hindu's routine bashing of the BJP? On the contrary, as we speak, the Election Commission of India is unearthing massive electoral fraud in CPIM-ruled West Bengal in the form of bogus voters, and there has not been a word of condemnation from The Hindu.

"The Hindu has lost much of its earlier reputation of being a stickler for truth- Hardcore POV!" That is again a widely held perception. I'll let this pass, but I'll soon show what according this abusing gentleman constitutes truth.

Now let us look at this gentleman's own copy:

1. "The Hindu enjoys considerable popularity, especially in South India, where it enjoys a cult status of being local tradition"

This sentence was introduced by ME. The Abuser gentleman doesn't dispute it. In other words, as long as I sing hosannahs to The Hindu, he is cool. The moment factual criticism about this pro-CPM paper is aired, he brings the knives out. Some balanced persepective that.

Why doesn't the abusing gentleman ask: "The Hindu is tradition? Isn't that POV?" He doesn't ask it because it fits in neatly with his own perceptions.

2."The reference to the Hindu religion in its name is actually a misnomer, and the paper is actually regarded as one of the most vocal critics of the Hindutva agenda." PoV. What connection Hindu religion and Hindutva have, given the claim of Marxists themselves that they are opposed only to Hindutva, not Hindu religion? The Abusing gentleman seems confused.

3. With photo-heavy content, The Hindu sports an attractive visual appeal

My sentence. Must have made the Abusing gentleman, I suspect, deliriously happy, because we see that it is not challenged. "Attractive visual appeal" is PoV allright? Some find circus posters attractive, and some others find CPM posters attractive. So the Abusing gentleman must have quibbled with my description. He doesn't. Why would he? Singing hosannahs to The Hindu is the name of the game.

"and today one of the reasons for its continued popularity are its ability to balance entertainment and images with unbiased reporting and in-depth analysis." PoV.

4. "after an ownership change, it became a proponent of the nationalist struggle against colonialism, virtually being a mouthpiece of the Indian National Congress"

PoV. Apparently, it's ok to say that THe Hindu was once a mouthpiece of the Congress. (Did it declare itself committed to Congress politics?) But no sooner than the fact that today the same paper is pro-Communist is brought out, knees begin to jerk frantically.

5. "All along, The Hindu displayed a strong independent stand however, with its emphasis on truthfulness, objectivity"

Tons and tons of PoV here, all the way. Shall we forget that the father himself accused the son of turning the paper into a scandal-monger? That is, the outgoing editor was accused by the incoming as not being truthful!

"The Hindu still remains independent, progressive "

Virtual minefield of PoV here. Independent according to who, Mr Abuser? Progressive according to who? No Communist, with Communism's genocidal track record of killing millions, can be progressive according to a lot of sane people in the world. Let's not forget that The Hindu justified Tiananmen Square. And that its current editor virtually justified the cultural genocide of Tibetan Budhdhism.

"It however also has to be acknowledged that the Leftist parties get very bad press from other media organizations"

Wow. This truck-load of PoV from a gentleman who faults mefor stating the FACT that The Hindu routinely gives bad press to CPIM's political rivals, and more so to BJP.

Here is a journalism primer for the Abusing gentleman: No matter what the excuse, a newspaper is expected to be committed to, first and foremost, truth and objectivity. Even if the claim that no newspaper in India gives good coverage to CPIM is true (which it is not), that is not justification enough for The HIndu to run pro-CPM propaganda.

At any rate, we are NOT disputing The Hindu's right to be a CPIM mouthpiece. We are merely stating the fact that it is! And stating this fact (which the Abuser himself agrees with, though with his characteristic gloss replacing "CPIM" with "Left") brings forth abuse!

To sum up: The abusing gentleman's writeup does not meet the basic requirements of a Wiki entry, whereas mine does, because the latter presents a balanced picture giving praise to The Hindu where it desreves it, and pointing out its flaws where they need to be.

Satyameva jayate 19:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Satyameva- Aww, you sound hurt... All you have done my friend, is to list whatever the previous user has written and call each statement a POV and defend your own points he/she listed as non-POV. I personally do think your version of the page reflects a more unrestrained bias. So, I also think this is one for Wiki's editors to adjudicate.

And you, dear chap, seem to have abandoned even your pretense at reasoned argument. While Wiki's editors adjudicate, please do a couple of favors 1) to me: leave _my_ version unmolested, which I personally think is bias-free and 2) to yourself: enrol in Logic 101 at LSE.

A few sentences in the article were not only POV but also incorrect. They have been replaced with a neutral stance. Nobody is sure yet what the circulation of Deccan Chronicle is.

POV tag 8th Feb '06

Ok, Mr Birbal from Bangalore, or whoever you are, you're very clever for being able to do a reverse DNS look up, and I salute your wisdom. And, I am not really interested in wasting my time with endless reverts as you seem to be. However, without prejudice and bias (to prove it, I do concede that you have indeed made the page seem less like a virulent personal attack), may I submit to you that I question whether the following inserted by you is true:

"Consequent to the change in its politics, The Hindu has lost much of its earlier reputation of being a stickler for truth. Its cult status of being tradition is on the wane too. Ironically, though, for a newspaper committed to Marxist politics, The Hindu owes success to the monopoly status (in the Madras market) that its founders built, and is still thriving in the capitalistic and fiercely competitive Indian media market".

It is at least disputable, you must agree, that something so paramount as "The Hindu's reputation of being a stickler for the truth" cannot be thrown in there without some concrete evidence such as the results of an opinion poll or survey about the paper. If you can find something like that and put it in here I would be happy to let your statement remain (If you notice I have anyway let it remain- not deleted it- but just added a POV tag to voice my dissent). I would say a similar thing about its' "cult status" and the cause of its success being its monopoly position (is there a counterfactual for this- i.e. some way of showing that IF some other paper like the TOI came into Tamil Nadu The Hindu would DEFINITELY suffer?)- could you please provide more evidence to back up these opinion?

Again, I am putting these questions to you purely for the sake of making this page look factual- any personal views of mine that coloured my initial reactions are regretted.

---

If you want this page to look factual, please read The Hindu. Following the turmoil of 2003 at the paper's helm, there was much comment in the media on how its politics was getting the better of its journalism. Here is a sample: [[2]]. I can give hundreds of examples from The Hindu itself showing its rank opportunism, its lack of ethics and absence of commitment to consistency of principle. In fact, I gave one here recently: When Bihar Assembly is dissolved The Hindu hails the move as constitutionally proper, because the CPIM was in favour of it. When eventually the supreme court rules that the dissolution was unconstitutional, the Hindu follows suit cocnurring with the court, thereby setting a new record in eating one's own words. When Hindus protest an MF Husain painting showing a naked Sita in the company of a naked Hanuman, the Hindu spews venom against them, sets itself up as a barometer of Hindu sensibilities and declares that there was nothing to take offence at all. But when Islamists (not, note, Muslims) rage against a few cartoons, The Hindu decalres that offence was indeed given because non-Muslims failed to respect Islamic taboos on pictures!!

I can put all these examples in the Wiki entry, with references to each and every of them. When you juxtapose,say, The Hindu's first editorial on Bihar assembly dissolution, next to its second one following Supreme Court's judgement, the contrast is nothing short of dramatic. And many of the examples I can cite with references to content from The Hindu itself, I promise, will be no less dramatic.

But Wiki entry on The Hindu is not a research paper. It is a summary of what the paper is and what the public perception about it is. If you want to insist that The Hindu is a newspaper of truth, integrity and ethics, please give what you are pretty good at demanding of others: the results of an opinion poll or survey. LIkewise, how about that bit about other papers not giving space to critques of neo-liberal policies etc ... any evidence in the form of an opinion poll or survey, or is it merely your exalted opinion? Moreover, why is it a requirement of any newspaper that it should criticize these so-called neo-liberal policies? Does The Hindu criticize Marxist fanaticism? There is an irony, dude, in living in UK enjoying the fruits of capitalism and dictating to Indians what economic policies they should follow. An irony as sweet as the Iyengar family that runs The Hindu getting richer by the day plugging Marxism even as their riches come from the advertising revenue made possible by "neo-liberal" policies. From Pepsi to Coke to Ford to General Motors, nary a business representative of the Great Satan goes unrepresented in The Hindu's pages.

well, since i am trying to look at our debate with an unbiased eye it seems to me that what we are arguing over is definitely YOUR exalted opinion against mine. i admit, i may not be able to find an opinion poll that says that the hindu reflects truth, integrity and ethics, but its popularity in south india and indeed other parts of the country to me reflect that. but that again you put down to its monopoly position, and as i said that cannot be proven or disproved since there is no counterfactual. again, maybe it is my opinion, but i believe that in a country where 26% or more of the population is below the poverty line, and muslims as a minority were constantly beseiged by the fundamentalist Sangh Parivar and the BJP government, there IS a need for a critique of neo-liberalism which does nothing more for the poor other than the debatable 'trickle down' and there IS a need for critiquing mainstream Hindutva politics that can climax in horrible pogroms like gujarat and if anything less, outrages such as ayodhya. this again, i would call accepted fact, but you would call opinion.

having said this, i do agree with you that there have been inconsistencies such as the bihar episode, but i think you find these with any indian paper. i mean if you ask me, there are far worse crimes in the mainstream media today, such as the Times of India selling even editorial space for a price. so, is this a reason for singling out the hindu for critique? i am not sure. your criticism about the leftist tilt is relatively more valid, in my view. such a tilt by newspapers towards ANY party is contrary to its theoretical position as one of the non-partisan pillars of democratic society. however, i think it is reasonable to suggest that if The Hindu seems pro-left it may only be because it is pro-poor in its opinionating, and there is nothing wrong with that considering India is the country with the most poor people in the world, and they live a life of utter indignity. and secondly, as you pointed out, bias towards left parties in particular makes a strange bedfellow with dependence on ad revenues from goods that cater purely to the middle and upper classes. so what do you suggest, that The Hindu stop accepting advertisements? perhaps that is indeed what you mean, for then it would imply that the paper perish entirely, an outcome, i am sure, that would make you happy.

one more thing you do need to take note of, however is that at least i have had the decency (since my last entry addressed to you), to keep the personal stuff out of it, which you haven't. i refuse, for the record, to agree that my right to comment on Indian politics is in any way compromised because i am writing from the UK, not only because i am indian, live in india and am just abroad temporarily, but more because your assumption that you have a greater moral authority to comment on this matter reeks of continued prejudice.

and as a last word, since i feel Mr Bangalore and I are reaching an 'agree-to-disagree-position' (at least in my view, since i believe we are now down to the brass tacks of one person's opinion against another's), I STILL APPEAL TO WIKIPEDIA EDITORS TO LOOK INTO MY VIEW THAT THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED (not saying they should agree with my view), based on scholarly as well as public opinion on what reputation The Hindu enjoys today.

how is the hindu 'progressive'? whose definition of progress is this? we are told that to remove astrology column is progressive! if its only as simple as that. yesterday in an editorial hindu said that european newspapers should not have published the cartoons in deference to quranic injunctions against pictures. now that is crazy, for a newspaper to argue that other newspapers should bend and crawl before religious dictats (just like it does). far from being progressive, the hindu is a reactionary, regressive and revanchist newspaper.

---

How does gently reminding the free press of its responsibilites constitute any sort of attack on the right to freedom of expression? The aforementioned editorial in no way implied that newspapers in Denmark or anywhere else do not have this RIGHT. It seems in no way partisan to point out that this right also comes with reasonable SELF-MODERATION (I wouldn't even call it censorship) responsibilities. The Hindu is not isolated within the mainstream media in expressing this opinion.

---

"having said this, i do agree with you that there have been inconsistencies such as the bihar episode, but i think you find these with any indian paper"

all newspapers? you must be kidding. yea! inconsistency is probably a part of media reporting. But what appears in Hindu is one sided reporting. The glaring fact is that, you find no alternative column, atleast say once in a fortnight, no once in a month, written by a rightist, im sorry, atleast by a maoderate columnist. if this trend of the hindu were to continue, im afraid it will be nothing but a competitor of people's democracy.

If we are gonna get into the debate of different points of view, then, we are in the process of questioning everything in the article..who said hindu is fair, just, true and holds on to integrity n truth? In the issue of danish cartoons - "The aforementioned editorial in no way implied that newspapers in Denmark or anywhere else do not have this RIGHT. It seems in no way partisan to point out that this right also comes with reasonable SELF-MODERATION (I wouldn't even call it censorship) responsibilities. The Hindu is not isolated within the mainstream media in expressing this opinion." -again, almost every single piece of journalism in media, carried atleast one opinion which condemned the barbaric behaviour of the extremists but not the Hindu. i say, Hindu is isolated in the mainstream media.

i wish to inform you as a fourth generation reader of Hindu in my family, i dared to stop the subscription, opposed to the view of family, which reads hindu just because its been read for decades in our family. the same has been adopted in our neighbourhood and in our town too, so the point of view that Hindu is losing its traditional base is true. If you are searching for statistics to disvrove it - i will turn a leftist now- to say they are nothing but "merely manipulated numbers".

The article needs to be expanded, agreed. but for sure, it represents the right (correct!) view point and is not biased! - arjun 08:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Check

Seeing the above discussion,I believe the article as of now needs to undergo a POV check.--Sahodaran 08:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahodaran, I agree completely. As the editor BostonMA has mentioned below, the article at the moment seems replete with personal observations that are tantamount to equating The Hindu with a propaganda machine. Not only does this seem to be a grossly unjust view of the paper, it is factually incorrect and quite misleading. Additionally, as BostonMA has also said, such personalized judgements of The Hindu, or indeed any subject of an article, are inconsistent with the fundamental aims of Wikipedia. Editors such as Blue Tiger and others whose political philosophies clash with those of The Hindu, please note.

Nehru on Hindu

Somebody,in future expansions,add

Among the Indian owned English newspapers, The Hindu of Madras is probably the best, so far as get-up and news service are concerned. It always reminds me of an old maiden lady, very prim and proper, who is shocked if a naughty word is used in her presence. It is eminently the paper of the bourgeois, comfortably settled in life. Not for it is the shady side of existence, the rough and tumble and conflict of life. Several other newspapers of moderate views have also this 'old maiden lady' standard. They achieve it, but without the distinction of The Hindu and, as a result, they become astonishingly dull in every respect.

this quote by Jawaharlal Nehru , in his autobiography.

Inaccurate

Firstly, to whoever posted 'Negative Criticisms' (as opposed to?) and 'Criticisms', please do not post the same content to the discussion page as well. This is not the page's intended purpose. Secondly, the so-called critcisms, while fair in some regards (e.g. of Business Line) are blatantly inaccurate when discussing the loss of market share after the Deccan Chronicle coming to Tamil Nadu. No officially recongnized figures are available in this regard as it is too premature, and in fact a major view seems to be that the DC has not made a significant dent at all. Please do not post such misleading statements, masquerading as facts. Again, an appeal to Wiki editors to address this issue.

Wikipedia Policy of No Original Research

Wikipedia has a policy of No Original Research. If you are not familiar with this policy, please read it. In short, this policy states that even though a fact may be known to be true by one of the editors, unless the fact can be found to be stated by a reputable source, that fact may be removed by any editor.

The current article claims that the Hindu is an unofficial mouthpiece for Communist Party of India Marxist (CPIM).

Whether or not this statement is true, it needs to be backed by a reputable source. I therefore request that the editors of this article who wish the statement remain to provide such a source. --BostonMA 13:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I agree heartily. I am unsure if you will be able to change this about the page's contents though, given the number of people who seem to portray the newspaper as Marxist (conflating the paper with its proprietors'personal politcal beliefs). I've tried and it only leads to editing wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.22.141 (talk • contribs)

"The Hindu has lost much of its earlier reputation of being a stickler for truth." - If we are going to question the marxist credentials of The Hindu, then from where do we justify the point that, atleast at some point of time, it had a reputation of being a stickler for truth. I wish the editor of this article provides a reputable source, for such points to remain. - arjun 18:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear respected Arjun, the point you make is appropriate. If the article claims that the paper has or once had a reputation for being a stickler for truth, that claim also needs a reputable source. There are quite a few claims in the article that require sources, and I only mentioned one, but I do not mean that the others should not also be required to meet the same standard.

With regard to the relationship between the Hindu and the CPI M, I am not saying that Wikipedia policy forbid reporting such facts. I am only saying that Wikipedia policy is against reporting personal observations. For example, anyone may read the newspaper and can compare the space devoted to criticizing the BJP with the space devoted to criticizing the CPI M. Any Wikipedia editor may draw conclusions from this experience. However, conclusions drawn from personal experience are not what most Wikipedia editors believe ought to be included in an article, nor are they appropriate according to the existing policy. However, news about the Hindu that is notable and published in a reputable newspaper is acceptable Wikipedia material, provided it is properly attributed. For example, the conflict between The Hindu and Tamil Nadu legislature is well documented and mention of this conflict in the article is appropriate as long as both sides of the dispute are fairly represented. --BostonMA 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag

Whoever is trying to put POV checks, better explain why you are doing it. Else, I am going to remove them. I have already seen the previous reasons and they are hardly satisfying or relevant in the light of some subsequent changes made.

And, by the way, if you think there is a personal diatribe against N Ram or Communists, you need to point out where it is.

- Guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.232.42 (talk • contribs)

Dear anonymous user. I restore the POV tags because it appears to me that the current page does not meet the guidelines of NPOV. I think my opinion is shared by a number of editors. I currently do not have the time to argue with all the POV pushers who guard this page. However, I will continue to maintain a POV tag. Also, when adding comments to a talk page, please add them at the end, not at the top. --BostonMA 18:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Boston MA, You need to be more specific. If you cannot justify your position, you cannot expect the POV tag to remain.

Guest